Obama Sends $3.7 Trillion Budget to Congress

[Gerald]

President Obama sent Congress a $3.73 trillion budget Monday, a spending plan for 2012 that projects $1.1 trillion in deficit savings over the next decade but also continues adding to the national debt for years to come.

Republicans, who are still trying to cut billions out of this year's budget, slammed the proposal after giving it a quick analysis Monday morning. The top Republicans on the House and Senate budget committees said it would push $8.7 trillion in new spending while piling another $13 trillion onto the debt over the next 10 years.

"It would be better to do nothing than to pass this budget," House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan, R-Wis., said Monday.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/02/14/obama-sends-trillion-budget-congress/


Note: Published February 14, 2011

[gimpy117]

But the republicans still wanted their tax cut bill. :hmmm:

[Gerald]

But the republicans still wanted their tax cut bill. :hmmm: Yes, that's right...

[Ducimus]

So if understanding the tax cuts correctly, the average American foots the bill while the gilded elite get off scott free?

edit:
Yeah i know everyone supposed to get some tax break, but porportionally, if you do the percentages, the average joe saves SQUAT. The gilded elite save millions.

edit:
I'll just leave this here:
http://www.cagle.com/news/RememberingReagan/images/matson.jpg

[Gerald]

So if understanding the tax cuts correctly, the average American foots the bill while the gilded elite get off scott free?

edit:
Yeah i know everyone supposed to get some tax break, but porportionally, if you do the percentages, the average joe saves SQUAT. The gilded elite save millions.

edit:
I'll just leave this here:
http://www.cagle.com/news/RememberingReagan/images/matson.jpg What is the optimal solution to the problems, I'm not for any tax increases, but if you play with the idea that to decide what to do, :hmm2:

[gimpy117]

well under Sen. Ryan's "road map" tax plan, the Average tax for the middle class would actually go up by $900, while the top percent save hundreds of thousands to millions. The poorest only see a reduction of 174 dollars on average.


http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3114

[Gerald]

And how many will be unemployed when....

[Ducimus]

well under Sen. Ryan's "road map" tax plan, the Average tax for the middle class would actually go up by $900, while the top percent save hundreds of thousands to millions. The poorest only see a reduction of 174 dollars on average.


http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3114


plutocracy
plu·toc·ra·cy
[ploo-tok-ruh-see]

–noun, plural -cies.
1. the rule or power of wealth or of the wealthy.
2. a government or state in which the wealthy class rules.
3. a class or group ruling, or exercising power or influence, by virtue of its wealth.

[August]

Well how DARE those evil Republicans say the Democrats are spending too much money. :roll:

[Platapus]

What is the optimal solution to the problems, I'm not for any tax increases, but if you play with the idea that to decide what to do, :hmm2:


My opinion?

First we have to recognize that it took our nation many decades to build up this deficit/debt. To expect a workable plan to get rid of it in a few years is sophistry. There is no way we can economically withstand any drastic plan to eliminate the deficit quickly. It may be a case where the cure is worse than the disease.

Any solution will have to be a multi-generational solution and honestly that ain't gonna happen in today's sound-byte political environment.. but we can dream.

First step should be to freeze government spending. All government spending. Yes that means the military too. This will drastically slow down the growth of our deficit. It will still grow due to interest/SS/Medicare but it is a first step (if you find yourself in a deficit, first stop spending more money).

Let this solution cook for a few years to see how it works and to let the economy adapt to this change. During this time limits on SS and medicare can be slowly grandfathered in so that the current old guys who were relying on it can get it, while the younger guys who still have time to set up their own programs can do so (clearly the devil will be in the details). But the objective has to be to ween the citizens away from the "old" SS and Medicare system as we simply can't afford it in its present state. I don't think the solution is to eliminate these programs, but they do need to change.... but slowly.

Then after a few years we can cut more to the extent that even counting interest our deficit ceases to grow. Let that solution cook for a few years for the economy to adapt.

Then, and only then can we start cutting programs to start reducing the deficit and as the years pass we can continue to adjust these programs under a balanced budget schema.

But we can't do it all at once. It took us decades to screw up, it will take decades to fix. But the first step needs to be to stop increasing the spending.

We also need to recognize that any corrective action will hurt. We need to spread the hurt. Yes that means that in some cases a person who did not do anything wrong will be paying for those who did. We have to suck it up for the betterment of our country.

But like I posted before, this is strictly a fantasy. We can't get politicians to give a crap about our country even within their term, no less multi-generational. Politicians simply don't care enough. :nope:

[Gerald]

My opinion?

First we have to recognize that it took our nation many decades to build up this deficit/debt. To expect a workable plan to get rid of it in a few years is sophistry. There is no way we can economically withstand any drastic plan to eliminate the deficit quickly. It may be a case where the cure is worse than the disease.

Any solution will have to be a multi-generational solution and honestly that ain't gonna happen in today's sound-byte political environment.. but we can dream.

First step should be to freeze government spending. All government spending. Yes that means the military too. This will drastically slow down the growth of our deficit. It will still grow due to interest/SS/Medicare but it is a first step (if you find yourself in a deficit, first stop spending more money).

Let this solution cook for a few years to see how it works and to let the economy adapt to this change. During this time limits on SS and medicare can be slowly grandfathered in so that the current old guys who were relying on it can get it, while the younger guys who still have time to set up their own programs can do so (clearly the devil will be in the details). But the objective has to be to ween the citizens away from the "old" SS and Medicare system as we simply can't afford it in its present state. I don't think the solution is to eliminate these programs, but they do need to change.... but slowly.

Then after a few years we can cut more to the extent that even counting interest our deficit ceases to grow. Let that solution cook for a few years for the economy to adapt.

Then, and only then can we start cutting programs to start reducing the deficit and as the years pass we can continue to adjust these programs under a balanced budget schema.

But we can't do it all at once. It took us decades to screw up, it will take decades to fix. But the first step needs to be to stop increasing the spending.

We also need to recognize that any corrective action will hurt. We need to spread the hurt. Yes that means that in some cases a person who did not do anything wrong will be paying for those who did. We have to suck it up for the betterment of our country.

But like I posted before, this is strictly a fantasy. We can't get politicians to give a crap about our country even within their term, no less multi-generational. Politicians simply don't care enough. :nope: What areas do you think it should have first priority when it comes to saving money on :hmmm:

[Takeda Shingen]

First step should be to freeze government spending. All government spending. Yes that means the military too. This will drastically slow down the growth of our deficit. It will still grow due to interest/SS/Medicare but it is a first step (if you find yourself in a deficit, first stop spending more money).

I agree. Any serious discussion about spending reduction must include the average 1/5th of the budget that is defense spending.

[CaptainHaplo]

Simply put, allowing the deficit to grow at ALL is asking for a monetary collapse. The nations of the world are already agitating for a new base currency rather than the dollar. If that happens - and it will if our debt is allowed to continue to grow, then the dollar will collapse.

Platapus is right on one thing - when you spend more than you take in, you have to stop spending. So, right now we need to make THIS budget year (2011-2012) balance - interest payments all all. Sure its gonna suck, sure there will be cuts where we don't like it. But we can't sit by and say "well we are cutting back" while the debt continues to grow. Its like a stab wound victim, you can stop the bleeding, but you only choose to "slow it down".... is that really going to save his life? This is the country's fiscal life we are talking about. Slowing the bleeding isn't going to save it.

1 year to balance the budget. Then, the next year we start paying down the debt. Even if its only 100 Billion a year to start with (meaning at that rate your looking at 150 years to pay it all off) you start paying it back.

Now - I am going to be rather cold about this. Total Revenue in 2010 was 2.16 Trillion. We need to be spending no more than what we make. That means drastic cuts to a lot of things. Yes - even Defense. Yes, changes to the SS infrastructure will be needed. Changes across the board.

What needs to happen is the entire budget process needs to be changed. Its handled backwards right now. The politicians (on both sides) figure out what they want to spend, then forget about what they make.

Wan't to solve the budget issues? Limit the government spending to its total reciepts for the previous year.

[tater]

So if understanding the tax cuts correctly, the average American foots the bill while the gilded elite get off scott free?

edit:
Yeah i know everyone supposed to get some tax break, but porportionally, if you do the percentages, the average joe saves SQUAT. The gilded elite save millions.


The "gilded elite" pay virtually ALL the bills.

The new budget is $12,000 per capita. No one deserves a cut who doesn't pony up enough to cover their family. We have 4 people, so our cut is $48,000. If we pay some multiple of that, and another family of 4 pays $4800, who deserves the cut again? The average joe pays for nothing at all. You could end income taxes on a standard deviation around the median of the middle bracket and it would barely be noticed.

Again, if there are any tax cuts, they should be, you know, to people actually paying taxes, and ideally those paying the most "shares" first.

This budget gives lie to Obama claiming any sort of fiscal responsibility. Send a balanced budget to Congress, or even one with a surplus or STFU. That goes to Republicans, too. Trimming off a few hundred billion isn't enough. Balanced, or STFU.

Instead of saving 1.1 trillion over 10 years (the obama plan, which increases spending, then also increases taxes), they need to have a budget that saves 1.1 trillion THIS YEAR. Alone. And every year forward. Take the 2007 budget and just change 2007 to 2012. Done.

[Ducimus]

One problem is the government isn't like you or me doing their personal budget. If you make X amount, you or I know that we cannot spend more then X amount. Preferbly X amount, ,minues Some money to put into savings for a rainy day.

To do this, you are I may pay just PL and PD on auto insurance, or subscribe to the lower end plan on cable (or do away with it entirely), watch electrical usage, use the AC less, etc etc.

But that's not how the government works, is it? It's all about special interest's, be it some hippy bleeding heart green group, or corporate megabucks and that upper elite i love to hate so much.

edit:
The "gilded elite" pay virtually ALL the bills.

BS. I don't see how that's possible since they've been busy offshoring their countryman's livelyhoods, automating what they can't, and using every loophole along the way to avoid taxes. Screw those "people".

[August]

Here's who pays what:

In 2002 the latest year of available data, the top 5 percent of taxpayers paid more than one-half (53.8 percent) of all individual income taxes, but reported roughly one-third (30.6 percent) of income.
The top 1 percent of taxpayers paid 33.7 percent of all individual income taxes in 2002. This group of taxpayers has paid more than 30 percent of individual income taxes since 1995. Moreover, since 1990 this group’s tax share has grown faster than their income share.
Taxpayers who rank in the top 50 percent of taxpayers by income pay virtually all individual income taxes. In all years since 1990, taxpayers in this group have paid over 94 percent of all individual income taxes. In 2000, 2001, and 2002, this group paid over 96 percent of the total.


http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/incometaxandtheirs/a/whopaysmost.htm

[gimpy117]

may I remind you, that the top one percent also has 33.8% percent of all the wealth...so i really don't think its all so bad then they pay 30% in 2002 like that article said. They can cry me a river...because when you are in the top 1% the amount of taxes taken from you when you make that amount of money has much less effect on you than somebody making $30,000 a year. The Bush Era was pretty darn good to these people, So im not so apt to feel bad when they bitch and moan about how much taxes they have as they fly around in their private jets.

[Sailor Steve]

well under Sen. Ryan's "road map" tax plan, the Average tax for the middle class would actually go up by $900, while the top percent save hundreds of thousands to millions. The poorest only see a reduction of 174 dollars on average.
"The poorest" don't pay any taxes, at least not income taxes. Trust me on this.

[gimpy117]

"The poorest" don't pay any taxes, at least not income taxes. Trust me on this.

ohhh but we do Steve. money is taken out of my paycheck, even though i make only 5k in the summer. I just have to file to get it back. But I would certianally love to not have 50 bucks taken out of every check. wanna send me some?

[August]

...I just have to file to get it back

You're not paying anything if you get it back. :roll:

[Ducimus]

ohhh but we do Steve. money is taken out of my paycheck,

Well, if you mean Poorest, as in, can't get any poorer, you have people who don't get a paycheck to begin with. They REALLY don't pay federal taxes.

[Rockstar]

Simply put, allowing the deficit to grow at ALL is asking for a monetary collapse. The nations of the world are already agitating for a new base currency rather than the dollar. If that happens - and it will if our debt is allowed to continue to grow, then the dollar will collapse.


IMO this is an engineered attempt to control how fast the dollar is devalued. Doing it such away to avert a catastrophic disaster by a sudden drop in strength.

Me thinks a global currency is on the way

[gimpy117]

You're not paying anything if you get it back. :roll:

the point is, I could use that money now...not this next year when i file those taxes. remember im a broke college student. besides, i don't get anything from SS or Medicare taxes those are paid into the system and gone forever.

[Platapus]

You're not paying anything if you get it back. :roll:

Then I have a deal for you.

Please give me $100.00 per month from Jan to Dec. On December 31st, I will give you, in cash, $1,200.

Deal?

Why not, you are not losing any money if you get it all back right? :yep:

But not only do you lose the use of the money, you are, in effect, giving me a zero interest loan of $100 for 12 months, $100 for 11 months, 10 months.......

I will be investing $100.00 for 12 months, $100 for 11 months.... and I will end up with more than $1,200 by the end of the year.

So yes the poor may get back 100% of what they paid in taxes, but that is not the same as not paying taxes at all. The poor in this country are simply loaning the government money at zero percent interest.... money they may need to buy food or pay rent. :yep:

[Sailor Steve]

ohhh but we do Steve. money is taken out of my paycheck, even though i make only 5k in the summer. I just have to file to get it back. But I would certianally love to not have 50 bucks taken out of every check. wanna send me some?
My last temp job didn't take any taxes out. On the other hand I am against the Income Tax, period, so we definitely disagree.

[August]

So yes the poor may get back 100% of what they paid in taxes, but that is not the same as not paying taxes at all. The poor in this country are simply loaning the government money at zero percent interest.... money they may need to buy food or pay rent. :yep:

A years interest on $1200 bucks is about enough for a cup of coffee. Quit acting like it's gonna pay the rent. I see your point about interest but it's hardly a significant amount and I know from personal experience that the lump sum can come in awful handy (perhaps to make a rent payment).

Be that as it may, however it certainly does not demonstrate one way or the other whether someone who actually does pay taxes should pay more or less.

[tater]

For those like gimpy whining about having the money taken out, how about there is zero withholding, then every April you have to write a check, instead. You won't owe ANY income tax, but you'll have to pony up your full FICA or go to jail.

I'm fine with that.

Also, if you make that little, you likely get a bigger "refund" than the amount actually withheld as many do.

[Platapus]

A years interest on $1200 bucks is about enough for a cup of coffee. Quit acting like it's gonna pay the rent. I see your point about interest but it's hardly a significant amount and I know from personal experience that the lump sum can come in awful handy (perhaps to make a rent payment).




There is a difference between "hardly a significant amount" and none. That was what I wanted to illustrate.

The point is that there is a misunderstanding when the government reports that x % of people have no federal tax liability and what is commonly discussed that x % of the people do not pay federal taxes. The two are not synonymous.

Oh and I agree that to many people they would prefer the one lump refund to a smaller deduction out of their pay. I knew a lot of people in the military who loved that.... they seemed to be the ones that did not do so well in math class. :D

PS. using an amortization calculator, at 1% interest, $100.00 per month for a year will result in a profit of $193.53 over the investment of $1,200. Hardly enough to retire on but a pretty expensive cup of coffee. :)

[August]

..they seemed to be the ones that did not do so well in math class. :D

Or at least they realized they'd just have pissed it all away along with the rest of their paycheck. :DL

[August]

PS. using an amortization calculator, at 1% interest, $100.00 per month for a year will result in a profit of $193.53 over the investment of $1,200. Hardly enough to retire on but a pretty expensive cup of coffee. :)

That's funny, using a savings calculator I come up with $5.53 profit.

$1.00 initial savings balance (It required a starting value).
$100 per monthly deposit
1% interest compounded monthly
For 1 year
-----------------
$1206.53 savings balance

http://www.bankrate.com/calculators/savings/simple-savings-calculator.aspx

Maybe I'm banking in the wrong place! :DL

[Hylander_1314]

"...100% of what is collected is absorbed solely by the interest on the Federal Debt, and by Federal Governemnt contributions to transfer payments. In otherwords, all individual incame tax revenues are gone before one nickel is spent on the services which taxpayers expect from their government." The Grace Commission 1982

[Armistead]

Here's who pays what:




http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/incometaxandtheirs/a/whopaysmost.htm


You think the rich pay the bills, they do, but over the last 20 years due to corporate elitism, pandering to corporations, their profit ratio compared to anytime in past history have far exceeded the tax rates they pay.

Now 1% of people hold over 40% of all wealth, 20% hold 80% in america, compared to the 70's era where 60% of us held about 80% of all wealth.
When you create an elite class, they're the ones you go to for taxes...but they don't care as long as they can purchase congress and pass any regulation they want, they'll gladly pay more taxes for mass profit.

The rich don't care about taxes or the dollar, they invest in real assets that now have become out of reach for most americans.

The GOP sell elitism under a lie called capitalism. We could easily be heading for a two class system of 80% in poverty, the rest billionaires. Our children and grandchildren will live much differently than we.

You think the middle class don't pay taxes. Add your sales tax, property tax, gas tax, electric tax and all the small hidden taxes seemingly in every bill to your fed and state tax...most of us that make under 100K a year pay about 35% in total tax.

[August]

You think the rich pay the bills, they do, but over the last 20 years due to corporate elitism, pandering to corporations, their profit ratio compared to anytime in past history have far exceeded the tax rates they pay.

Now 1% of people hold over 40% of all wealth, 20% hold 80% in america, compared to the 70's era where 60% of us held about 80% of all wealth.
When you create an elite class, they're the ones you go to for taxes...but they don't care as long as they can purchase congress and pass any regulation they want, they'll gladly pay more taxes for mass profit.

The rich don't care about taxes or the dollar, they invest in real assets that now have become out of reach for most americans.

The GOP sell elitism under a lie called capitalism. We could easily be heading for a two class system of 80% in poverty, the rest billionaires. Our children and grandchildren will live much differently than we.

You think the middle class don't pay taxes. Add your sales tax, property tax, gas tax, electric tax and all the small hidden taxes seemingly in every bill to your fed and state tax...most of us that make under 100K a year pay about 35% in total tax.

All that stuff you just is nothing but partisan posturing. Hear me now and believe me later, these class warfare tactics are going to bite you Liberals in the butt one day, hard. I just hope you don't tear my country apart in the meantime.

[mookiemookie]

All that stuff you just is nothing but partisan posturing.

No it's not. If you can disprove something he said, disprove it. But waving it off as "partisan posturing" is admitting that you can't.

And it's my country too. And his. Not just "yours."

[August]

No it's not. If you can disprove something he said, disprove it. But waving it off as "partisan posturing" is admitting that you can't.

I'm not admitting anything but I do note that you don't have anything to say about the class warfare flames you liberals keep fanning...

And it's my country too. And his. Not just "yours."

Well you just can't imagine how happy I am for you two... :roll:

[mookiemookie]

I'm not admitting anything but I do note that you don't have anything to say about the class warfare flames you liberals keep fanning... In the wise words of the philosopher Joel: "We didn't start the fire."

[tater]

What % of the wealth any group owns doesn't matter. It's a meaningless statistic, and the government should be blind to it. The distribution of income is not mandated by the Constitution.

Money is not a zero-sum game over time, the money supply grows. People in every bracket live different lives than when I was a kid in the 1970s. If you wish to say that X% more wealth is controlled by the top 1%, and is "gone" from the lower %s compared to some point in history, then demonstrate how this has impacted lives. You cannot complain that the poor cannot afford, say, broadband, when in the 70s there was no such thing in the first place. If home ownership numbers are different, if the square feet per capita is different, cell phone ownership (only the super rich had car-phones in their limos in 1970 (if even that)), etc, ad nauseum, then you cannot compare economic figures WRT to lifestyles (all that matters) over time without converting this increase in "value" into dollars.

I'll argue that even the poor wage earners are better off now than in 1971 (or '61, or '51) using any reasonable measure of how they live, and what they have.If they have better lives, then they "earn more" even if the % of wealth they own doesn't show this.

[August]

In the wise words of the philosopher Joel: "We didn't start the fire."

Part of the problem is that you consider Billy Joel a philosopher! But yeah lets look at the rest of that quote:

"We didn't start the fire
It was always burning
Since the world's been turning
We didn't start the fire
No we didn't light it
But we tried to fight it"

Except that you're not trying to fight it now are you?

[gimpy117]

What % of the wealth any group owns doesn't matter. It's a meaningless statistic, and the government should be blind to it. The distribution of income is not mandated by the Constitution.

A meaningless statistic? WHAT? It's not a meaningless statistic. It means the erosion of the middle class and the birth of the modern aristocracy who rule not by title and wealth, but now purely by wealth and the power that comes from it.
It's not some thing we can just ignore...it is a fundamental change in our society from a nation of middle class, to a plutocracy where you are either a lord or a surf. It's even a change in our tax system, where now most of the governments revenue will HAVE to come from the people at the top because they have most of the cash.

If Congress ignores this they are plain stupid. Tax wise, and economy wise, large percents of the money in so few hands is a disaster. Simply put, theres no distributed safety net. If for some reason the rich stop spending at the rate they do the economy is Sunk.

[August]

It's even a change in our tax system, where now most of the governments revenue will HAVE to come from the people at the top because they have most of the cash.

The people "at the top" have always supplied most of the governments revenue. Try seeing past your Democrat propaganda for once.

[Tribesman]

All that stuff you just is nothing but partisan posturing.
liberals democrats liberals democrat liberals....my country?????
partisan posturing eh:har::har::har::har:

[nikimcbee]

All that stuff you just is nothing but partisan posturing. Hear me now and believe me later, these class warfare tactics are going to bite you Liberals in the butt one day, hard. I just hope you don't tear my country apart in the meantime.

Tax union benefits.

[gimpy117]

The people "at the top" have always supplied most of the governments revenue. Try seeing past your Democrat propaganda for once.

fair enough. But now it's going to come even more so from the top. Try seeing past your republican agenda for once too.Things go both ways you now. Something about glass houses and what not. It's funny how the republican party is planning to screw the middle class and you all eat out of your palms. and when I say planning I mean that.

You know that new roadmap tax idea?

yeah, middle class pays on average $900 more in taxes while the top percent get hundreds of thousands to millions back. It would stack on top of the bush tax cuts and bring the official max to 25%. But effectively after itemizing and deductions its actually a lower effective rate than the middle class.

[August]

You know that new roadmap tax idea?

That's all it is, just an idea, and given the Dems fixation on it's probably been spun beyond recognition.

On the other hand your party has already enacted tax increases cleverly timed to hit post presidential election that will have the middle class paying far more.

[VipertheSniper]

Assuming the government is working with all the money people get at the end of the year refunded, how much interest do you think they make? Just enough to process the filings for refund, more than enough or less than enough?

I don't know if it's even possible to answer this question with any sort of accuracy, but it'd be interesting to know.

[gimpy117]

That's all it is, just an idea, and given the Dems fixation on it's probably been spun beyond recognition.

On the other hand your party has already enacted tax increases cleverly timed to hit post presidential election that will have the middle class paying far more.

far more? you sure? Im sure everybody would take an increase across the board if anything. Because frankly we can't pay for the programs we all want without either getting rid of them, or increasing taxes. At least were not handing more and more money to the richest of us.

and spun out of proportion? I read an independent report that was the source of everything I said.

[August]

At least were not handing more and more money to the richest of us.

Handing the rich more money? Do you actually believe that tripe?

Allowing people to keep more of their own money is not the same thing as handing them money.

[gimpy117]

completely different August...but nice try. That proposed budget gives the already over advantaged more, and then taxing the middle class more as a result. It's class discrimination...if you're gonna raise taxes for the less fortunate..you better do it for the more well off as well, otherwise it's an unfair policy that targets a specific group.

So i'd say, that taking from one group more, so another more fortunate bracket can get deeper cuts is pretty close to handing them money.

[August]

It's class discrimination...

Class discrimination is forcing one group to pay a higher percentage than another, pure and simple, which is exactly what you advocate.

[UnderseaLcpl]

Class discrimination is forcing one group to pay a higher percentage than another, pure and simple, which is exactly what you advocate.

No, August, that's "progressive" taxation. It's where we make the rich pay more to enhance social equality even though they end up paying less as percentage of income than the middle class does.

You can tell that it's a good idea because it has the word "progress" in it.

[mookiemookie]

Class discrimination is forcing one group to pay a higher percentage than another, pure and simple, which is exactly what you advocate.

Pardon me while I cry for the poor oppressed country club and yacht set. Can they ever overcome the burden of luxury and success and having to pay an grand or two in taxes? I sure hope so.

[nikimcbee]

Speaking of progress, inflation has arrived. I went shopping last night, and food prices have gone up.:yeah: That's okay, we got free healthcare and we can just print more money when it runs out.:woot:

[Aramike]

Pardon me while I cry for the poor oppressed country club and yacht set. Can they ever overcome the burden of luxury and success and having to pay an grand or two in taxes? I sure hope so.Ah, class envy at work.

Good to know that's what liberals use to define "fairness" when formulating fiscal policy.

And really, what about those rich lefties who are always pushing for such policies? What's stopping them from paying more taxes?

[Aramike]

Speaking of progress, inflation has arrived. I went shopping last night, and food prices have gone up.:yeah: That's okay, we got free healthcare and we can just print more money when it runs out.:woot:Remember: food and energy aren't calculated in the CPI, so there's no inflation. Really. Obamanomics is working. :up:

[mookiemookie]

Ah, class envy at work.

Good to know that's what liberals use to define "fairness" when formulating fiscal policy.

The rich rule this country - they buy the elections, they set the tone of the national discourse. "Fairness" indeed. Frack 'em.

[gimpy117]

Class discrimination is forcing one group to pay a higher percentage than another, pure and simple, which is exactly what you advocate.

See thats where I think logic breaks down. Having a more fortunate bracket pay a little bit more isn't such a bad thing to ask. It allows programs, and lower taxes for people who need it more. Lets face it, america has always been very good to it's elite...so why can't they give back? especially when the wealth gap marches on. At the very least you can call it a necessary evil.

Doing the opposite, taxing the the middle class more, so the rich can get historic low tax levels is a complete travesty.

Ill post this again. read it. http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3114

[August]

Pardon me while I cry for the poor oppressed country club and yacht set. Can they ever overcome the burden of luxury and success and having to pay an grand or two in taxes? I sure hope so.

Yeah and when they overcome that burden by firing a couple more employees or moving another plant overseas where it's cheaper, will that stop your crocodile tears?

[mookiemookie]

Yeah and when they overcome that burden by firing a couple more employees will that stop your crocodile tears?

There's no evidence that tax rates and employment are correlated.

[Aramike]

The rich rule this country - they buy the elections, they set the tone of the national discourse. "Fairness" indeed. Frack 'em.Do you mean the "rich" or the "super-duper-duper rich".

For instance, Obama's attacking my income as well. I'm rather well off, I wouldn't say quite "yacht" rich but nice suburban home, cars, an office in the city, etc. I also pay for the kids' educations, am building a nest egg, and employ a few people for various tasks (a couple of which I may lay off if my taxes get much higher).

My wife and I have worked our entire lives to earn this, and we work hard at living WELL within our means, maybe even a bit below. Why should more of what I've worked for be taken away from me and mine in order to spare a little bit for others? Why can't I be allowed to decide how to distribute my wealth? Why should I have to pay more for the entitlement of some useless urban family which chooses to feed (well) at the government teet rather than earn anything?

By the way, I'm pretty sure the unions have infiltrated the political discourse as deeply as the rich. Where's your complaint there?

[gimpy117]

Why should I have to pay more for the entitlement of some useless urban family which chooses to feed (well) at the government teet rather than earn anything?

I like your straw man. can i play too?

[August]

Do you mean the "rich" or the "super-duper-duper rich".

They mean anyone who is richer than they are.

[Aramike]

I like your straw man. can i play too?Do you actually know what a "straw man" argument is?

I'm pretty sure that my comment was completely relevent to the topic being discussed. Unless of course you think that any argument against your default, typical liberal position must be a straw man because there's no way that any other position could be valid...

[gimpy117]

Do you actually know what a "straw man" argument is?

I'm pretty sure that my comment was completely relevent to the topic being discussed. Unless of course you think that any argument against your default, typical liberal position must be a straw man because there's no way that any other position could be valid...

"Inventing a fictitious persona with actions or beliefs which are then criticized, implying that the person represents a group of whom the speaker is critical."

oh and heres a passage that pretty much sums up what we mean by the super rich, and who the ryan plan really benefits.

The Ryan plan would cut in half the taxes of the richest 1 percent of Americans — those with incomes exceeding $633,000 (in 2009 dollars) in 2014.
The higher one goes up the income scale, the more massive the tax cuts would be. Households with incomes of more than $1 million would receive an average annual tax cut of $502,000.
The richest one-tenth of 1 percent of Americans — those whose incomes exceed $2.9 million a year — would receive an average tax cut of $1.7 million a year. These tax cuts would be on top of those that high-income households would get from making the Bush tax cuts, which are due to expire at the end of 2010, permanent.
To offset some of the cost of these massive tax cuts, the Ryan plan would place a new consumption tax on most goods and services, a measure that would increase taxes on most low- and middle-income families. TPC finds that:
About three-quarters of Americans — those with incomes between $20,000 and $200,000 — would face tax increases. For example, households with incomes between $50,000 and $75,000 would face an average tax increase of $900. (These estimated changes in taxes are relative to the taxes that would be paid under a continuation of current policy — i.e., what tax liabilities would be if the President and Congress make permanent the expiring 2001 and 2003 tax cuts and relief from the alternative minimum tax.)
The plan would shift tax burdens so substantially from the wealthy to the middle class that people with incomes over $1 million would face much lower effective tax rates than middle-income families would. That is, they would pay much smaller percentages of their income in federal taxes.

[Armistead]

I'm not admitting anything but I do note that you don't have anything to say about the class warfare flames you liberals keep fanning...



Well you just can't imagine how happy I am for you two... :roll:


You don't think something is wrong when just 1% hold 40% of all wealth, 20% hold 80%...although more recent studies say 10% control over 90% of all wealth..compare to where we in the past and it should shock you.

I'm sure you believe Americans got lazy and we all had the same equal ability as those in power to gain mass wealth on our own. Corporations bought our congressional seats, both parties, but the GOP by far.. I'm far from liberal, I'm just not a panzy for a party. I look at facts and make up my own mind.
http://www.mybudget360.com/top-1-percent-control-42-percent-of-financial-wealth-in-the-us-how-average-americans-are-lured-into-debt-servitude-by-promises-of-mega-wealth/

"According to research (http://www.people.hbs.edu/mnorton/norton%20ariely%20in%20press.pdf) (PDF) carried out by Michael I. Norton (http://drfd.hbs.edu/fit/public/facultyInfo.do?facInfo=pub&facEmId=mnorton&loc=extn) of Harvard Business School and Dan Ariely (http://www.fuqua.duke.edu/faculty_research/faculty_directory/ariely/) of Duke University, and flagged by Paul Kedrosky (http://paul.kedrosky.com/archives/2010/09/americans_have.html?mobify=0) at the Infectious Greed blog, 92 percent of Americans would choose to live in a society with far less income disparity than the US, choosing Sweden's model over that of the US.
According to research (http://www.people.hbs.edu/mnorton/norton%20ariely%20in%20press.pdf) (PDF) carried out by Michael I. Norton (http://drfd.hbs.edu/fit/public/facultyInfo.do?facInfo=pub&facEmId=mnorton&loc=extn) of Harvard Business School and Dan Ariely (http://www.fuqua.duke.edu/faculty_research/faculty_directory/ariely/) of Duke University, and flagged by Paul Kedrosky (http://paul.kedrosky.com/archives/2010/09/americans_have.html?mobify=0) at the Infectious Greed blog, 92 percent of Americans would choose to live in a society with far less income disparity than the US, choosing Sweden's model over that of the US."


You still think corporate american cares about america and probably believe in trickle down. This fiscal mess was created when Bush was in office, as were non ending wars. Corporations are now working globally minded, thinking a global future. They once worked well for america and made money, now they're only interested in a global economy, not what works for america.

I voted for Obama, not so much against McCain, but against a GOP that went totally mad under Bush. I would gladly for a Nadar, Paul, ect.. Heck, I would just vote for someone totally honest, even a King at this moment.

[Sea Demon]

There's no evidence that tax rates and employment are correlated.

Oh my. What mind-boggling economic ignorance. Most of the job creators in our nation are small business owners. They live and expand their operations based on market demands and the amount of available capital that can be used to employ more people and build more facilities to support their operations. It is established fact that the more capital seized by the government, means less available capital for business's to grow their operations or even sustain them. These small business owners are the very people we need to grow our economy and produce more jobs and real opportunity. These are real jobs that actually produce new innovations, products, and services. Not the kind of tax payer supported jobs Obama and Democrats in general envision (government paper pusher jobs)(green jobs???). Those types of jobs usually suck money out of the economy, usually produce nothing, and are usually pie in the sky (like the green jobs nonsense which show no market demand).

[Torvald Von Mansee]

OH BOY OH BOY!!!

I can hardly WAIT to read through this thread, with its evenhanded and fair analyses from all sides!!!

[Aramike]

"Inventing a fictitious persona with actions or beliefs which are then criticized, implying that the person represents a group of whom the speaker is critical.Dude, to be a straw man argument, the statement you take must actually be the argument.

Instead, you took ONE sentence that was merely another supporting reasoning behind the actual argument, quoted it, and labelled it a straw man. (This should have been obvious as it was a part of a paragraph.)

In effect, YOU created the straw man and employed the straw man fallacy. Simply brilliant! The irony is so thick.

Besides, your definition of a straw man fallacy is, well, quite lacking.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/straw-man.html

[gimpy117]

Oh my. What mind-boggling economic ignorance. Most of the job creators in our nation are small business owners. They live and expand their operations based on market demands and the amount of available capital that can be used to employ more people and build more facilities to support their operations. It is established fact that the more capital seized by the government, means less available capital for business's to grow their operations or even sustain them. These small business owners are the very people we need to grow our economy and produce more jobs and real opportunity. These are real jobs that actually produce new innovations, products, and services. Not the kind of tax payer supported jobs Obama and Democrats in general envision (government paper pusher jobs)(green jobs???). Those types of jobs usually suck money out of the economy, usually produce nothing, and are usually pie in the sky (like the green jobs nonsense which show no market demand).

most small business owners don't make it into high enough brackets to matter...so it's pretty much a moot point.

[gimpy117]

Dude, to be a straw man argument, the statement you take must actually be the argument.

Instead, you took ONE sentence that was merely another supporting reasoning behind the actual argument, quoted it, and labelled it a straw man. (This should have been obvious as it was a part of a paragraph.)

In effect, YOU created the straw man and employed the straw man fallacy. Simply brilliant! The irony is so thick.

Besides, your definition of a straw man fallacy is, well, quite lacking.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/straw-man.html

ha ha ha! Lets split hairs here. You used a that statement to make an argument against paying taxes for social programs, by inventing some persona of the poor in america as some kind of leech on the system. I'd say if it looks like a duck...and walks like a duck....

[Aramike]

oh and heres a passage that pretty much sums up what we mean by the super rich, and who the ryan plan really benefits. Please link this passage. I'd like to see citations.

[mookiemookie]

Oh my. What mind-boggling economic ignorance. Most of the job creators in our nation are small business owners. They live and expand their operations based on market demands and the amount of available capital that can be used to employ more people and build more facilities to support their operations. It is established fact that the more capital seized by the government, means less available capital for business's to grow their operations or even sustain them. These small business owners are the very people we need to grow our economy and produce more jobs and real opportunity. These are real jobs that actually produce new innovations, products, and services. Not the kind of tax payer supported jobs Obama and Democrats in general envision (government paper pusher jobs)(green jobs???). Those types of jobs usually suck money out of the economy, usually produce nothing, and are usually pie in the sky (like the green jobs nonsense which show no market demand).

Prove it. With data and charts, please. (Hint: don't spend too much time on it - you can't.)

Actually, let me do the work for you, as it illustrates how your fantasy world narrative is not born out by reality:

Corporate rates:

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_8UVGnCIfOVk/TI1b0J4EALI/AAAAAAAAAYI/3bRe6GcNXY4/s1600/corporatetax1.bmp

Personal rates:

http://www.faireconomy.org/files/images/tax_emp.gif

What was that about economic ignorance?

[gimpy117]

Please link this passage. I'd like to see citations.

http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3114

[Aramike]

ha ha ha! Lets split hairs here. You used a that statement to make an argument against paying taxes for social programs, by inventing some persona of the poor in america as some kind of leech on the system. I'd say if it looks like a duck...and walks like a duck....Umm, no, I used that statement, along with MANY OTHER statements, in SUPPORT of an argument.

Keep arguing your straw man, though. It's kinda funny. :yeah:

[gimpy117]

Umm, no, I used that statement, along with MANY OTHER statements, in SUPPORT of an argument.

Keep arguing your straw man, though. It's kinda funny. :yeah:

oh my. so you are saying that that passage was not a straw man...because you placed it in with other arguments?

so if i write a swear word in between two other words am i not swearing?

[tater]

Pardon me while I cry for the poor oppressed country club and yacht set. Can they ever overcome the burden of luxury and success and having to pay an grand or two in taxes? I sure hope so.

Equal protection under the law is a fundamental concept in the US.

The burden of proof lies on YOU to describe how different amounts of tax, and different rates of tax are "equal protection." The current tax codes (federal AND state) are arbitrary. Some economic activity at a certain income level is taxed one way, and OTHER economic activity at the same income level is taxed a different way. The tax code is based on this, which is why it is so huge, and impossible to understand.

There is no reason why the US income tax code should not fit on 1-2 pages, single spaced. All of it.

A flat income tax with no loopholes for any reason would at least meet the "equal protection" threshold of "fairness."

All the people defending confiscatory tax policies here love to trot out people who are "super rich" or some other adjective in front of "rich." The reality is that the bulk of the people in the top tax bracket make enough that the bracket is meaningful, and not enough so that they don't notice.

Letting the Bush tax cuts expire is a meaningful extra tax bill to me. Thousands of dollars... is a big deal I bet for 90% of the people in the top tax bracket. All that money, what happens if I keep it? Apparently according to the left here, I stuff it in a mattress. FYI, every penny would be SPENT, the vast majority locally.

Again, the % of wealth controlled is a meaningless statistic unless somehow weighted to lifestyle, since "wealth" as an abstract doesn't mean anything. A lower middle-class wage earner in the US right now likely has a far better life that an upper middle class, or even upper class person from 100 years ago. % owned is only meaningful if the world economy has a zero sum. It does not.

[Aramike]

http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3114Really? That's your source?

Okay, I see what they are trying to say - its a paper on ETR. However, Ryan's tax is an actual INCREASE in straight up income tax along with an elimination of capital gains. Do you understand the impact of a capital gains tax?

So fine, it's a net loss in ETR regarding the wealthy, BUT because of that net loss, one could speculate that there would be an INCREASE in capital investment. That is good news for business and jobs.

What Ryan's proposing is that while indeed there may be a cut to the ETR, there would be far more incentive to get the wealthy to invest their money into industry. In other words, he's proposing a free-market method to redistribute wealth by incentivizing investment into CREATING more weath. Remember: there is no capital gain without capital investment, and when capital gains occur, they occur for all of those shared in that investment (including 401ks and 403bs, mutual funds, etc). Ryan is attempting to incentivize more money to be invested into the economy directly, which would then be able to be taxed as a GROWTH.

All the while, it is merely a SLIGHT increase in the ETR of the middle class except that you're completely skipping the direct benefit it would have to the average middle class employee. While this rate may slightly increase, the ability for companies to increase pay and provide more jobs will also increase.

This article is highly flawed because it's playing with the numbers as though there would be absolutely no economic impact whatsoever.

[Aramike]

oh my. so you are saying that that passage was not a straw man...because you placed it in with other arguments?

Dude - yes, I am saying that. Furthermore I'm saying that you have no idea what a straw man argument is, because if you did you would know it must be an ARGUMENT to be a straw man. That one sentence was not an ARGUMENT. It was a sentence explaining one reasoning I had for the argument.

Get it? (Doubt it)

Pretty simple, though.
so if i write a swear word in between two other words am i not swearing? Oh man, and the irony gets thicker and thicker... :ping:

[mookiemookie]

Equal protection under the law is a fundamental concept in the US.

Being rich is not a suspect classification. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suspect_classification)

[Sea Demon]

Prove it. With data and charts, please. (Hint: don't spend too much time on it - you can't.)

Actually, let me do the work for you, as it illustrates how your fantasy world narrative is not born out by reality:

Corporate rates:

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_8UVGnCIfOVk/TI1b0J4EALI/AAAAAAAAAYI/3bRe6GcNXY4/s1600/corporatetax1.bmp

Personal rates:

http://www.faireconomy.org/files/images/tax_emp.gif

What was that about economic ignorance?

I've seen these charts from DailyKos/Democrat Underground or some such idiotic site before. And no...these data sets are incomplete and fallacious. First off, they don't tell you what type of employment they are talking about. Do these charts include government jobs as a part of the scale? Do they also include those people who the government doesn't include in unemployment figures who have stopped looking for work as well. These charts are meaningless without those considerations and more. Sometimes I wonder where people on the left think the money to sustain business operations come from. Instead of reading meaningless charts put together by big government agitators, why not look at the balance sheets of most businesses. Most of these have line items showing expenses. And one of those accounts for taxes. It's really common sense that the higher this is, as an expense...the less capital there is available to grow or sustain operations.

If you honestly think that the more money seized from business by government will actually help that business grow or sustain....then perhaps you are a lost cause. Look at California, where taxes are sky high, and businesses are leaving in droves. My company's HQ ops left California this year, and cited costs and taxes as the reasons to layoff more than 80 people and move operations to another state. But Democrats continue to believe this nonsense that you posted above. I guess Obama is your guy. Keep that obscene bumper sticker on your car...I guess.

[Sea Demon]

Being rich is not a suspect classification. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suspect_classification)

So if you've earned a good living, and have gotten rich, you don't deserve equal protection under the law?

[UnderseaLcpl]

The rich rule this country - they buy the elections, they set the tone of the national discourse. "Fairness" indeed. Frack 'em.

They're only able to do so because we thought it was a good idea to give the government a lot of power to stop them, which the rich promptly co-opted and used for their own purposes. If you push the issue through any means other than capitalism, they'll take more advantage. It's not fair and it's not right, but very little about life is.

I'm completely with you when it comes to being disgusted over the distribution of wealth, both in this country and the world at large. If I had such wealth, I'd feel morally compelled to give most of it away. Nay, I'd feel morally compelled to give away everything I didn't absolutely need. Then again, I'm not the manager of a corporate empire worth billions.

The owner of my company, Warren Buffet, is one of the richest people in the world. He has personally acknowledged that it's a "crime" that he pays less of a percentage of his income than his employees do, but that doesn't stop him from doing it. I have no idea why he is comfortable with that situation. What I do know is that he has created and supported millions of jobs, including mine. If obtaining vast amounts of wealth is the motivating factor he needs to drag me and others along with him on the path to prosperity, I'm okay with that. Economics is not a zero-sum game, it's not like we're getting less of the pie because the people who bother paying us enough to afford a slice are getting more. The whole pie is getting bigger, for everyone.


Getting back to my original point, the only method of making the extremely wealthy pay their fair share is to set a reasonable and ironclad flat tax via a constitutional budget amendment. Every other power of taxation, no matter how well-intentioned, is just a loophole waiting to be exploited by someone, somewhere, who is smarter and more concerned than you or I.

[tater]

Both of mookie's charts are meaningless. Top MARGINAL rates don't matter in the least, and are in fact impossible to compare over time. How can you compare a tax code with a 70% top marginal rate, and a billion loopholes, with a top marginal rate of 39%, and only a half a million loopholes? You cannot.

No one actually payed the top rates back in the day, just like John Kerry didn't pay anything like 39% when he ran for President, that year he paid ~15%. They had huge top rates because they knew no one was going to actually pay them.

If you look at tax revenues by year, you'll see that they remain remarkably constant, regardless of what the marginal rates do. That's because changes always have the effective rates remain about the same.

US corporate tax rates are really high, but have loopholes. In addition, corporations move assets offshore to avoid the tax because it's cheaper than paying. LOwer corporate rates, with fewer loopholes increase revenues, typically.

[August]

You don't think something is wrong when just 1% hold 40% of all wealth, 20% hold 80%...although more recent studies say 10% control over 90% of all wealth..compare to where we in the past and it should shock you.

Let's get something straight Arimstead. It's THEIR wealth! Private property. What you advocate is nothing less than legalized theft. Politics of the mob. Where will it end?

[yubba]

I'm sure not a fan of re-dis-tra-bu-tion of wealth, which is a commie ploy, some day, I would like to be rich without having to give 80 percent of it away to some illegal immigrant. Shut the government down I say, they don't produce anything any way. The dept of energy doesn't produce one watt of power.

[gimpy117]

I'm sure not a fan of re-dis-tra-bu-tion of wealth, which is a commie ploy, some day, I would like to be rich without having to give 80 percent of it away to some illegal immigrant. Shut the government down I say, they don't produce anything any way. The dept of energy doesn't produce one watt of power.

and thats the carrot they dangle in front of your nose.

[mookiemookie]

partisan crap

Well, whatever works for you, I guess. Write the Bureau of Labor Statistics if you have a problem with their data. Let me know how far you get with that.

You're digging yourself a hole anyways - the actual U-6 rate of unemployment is going to be much higher than he headline U-3 measure that these charts use. So the fact that there's no-to-negative correlation between tax rates and unemployment is going to look even worse for your side of the argument.

Just stop. if you can't offer rational analysis that's not based in data, then just bow out. Seriously. You just made yourself look very dumb.

[Sea Demon]

Well, whatever works for you, I guess. Write the Bureau of Labor Statistics if you have a problem with their data. Let me know how far you get with that.

This set of data is simply not useful to make the argument you're trying to make with it. It's fallacious. If you don't understand how the US government has been fudging employment numbers over the past couple of decades, this will be beyond you. The people who put your charts together probably couldn't tell you what types of employment are used, or any other statistical adjustments used to create that chart. However, out in the real world, people who operate real businesses with real capital and real operating expenses can tell you that taxation has a direct result on their employment practices.

[mookiemookie]

They're only able to do so because we thought it was a good idea to give the government a lot of power to stop them, which the rich promptly co-opted and used for their own purposes. If you push the issue through any means other than capitalism, they'll take more advantage. It's not fair and it's not right, but very little about life is.

I'm completely with you when it comes to being disgusted over the distribution of wealth, both in this country and the world at large. If I had such wealth, I'd feel morally compelled to give most of it away. Nay, I'd feel morally compelled to give away everything I didn't absolutely need. Then again, I'm not the manager of a corporate empire worth billions.

The owner of my company, Warren Buffet, is one of the richest people in the world. He has personally acknowledged that it's a "crime" that he pays less of a percentage of his income than his employees do, but that doesn't stop him from doing it. I have no idea why he is comfortable with that situation. What I do know is that he has created and supported millions of jobs, including mine. If obtaining vast amounts of wealth is the motivating factor he needs to drag me and others along with him on the path to prosperity, I'm okay with that. Economics is not a zero-sum game, it's not like we're getting less of the pie because the people who bother paying us enough to afford a slice are getting more. The whole pie is getting bigger, for everyone.


Getting back to my original point, the only method of making the extremely wealthy pay their fair share is to set a reasonable and ironclad flat tax via a constitutional budget amendment. Every other power of taxation, no matter how well-intentioned, is just a loophole waiting to be exploited by someone, somewhere, who is smarter and more concerned than you or I.

James, I gotta tell you - you put everyone on here to shame with the level of discourse that you engage in. You can have the confrontational partisan claptrap crap that Sea Demon chooses to spew, or you can have the well reasoned and enlightened posts that you make. Just wanted to give you your props.

Now, moving on...

I don't have all the answers. I do agree that something is wrong when the rich keep getting richer - but that's a symptom and not the underlying problem itself. When I'd like to get to the bottom of is why that's the case. My hypothesis is that the rich (whatever definition - top 1%, top 20%, top whatever) have a disproportionate influence on political policy. Policies that unfairly benefit them at the expense of the lower classes.

I see economics as more zero-sum than people realize. Dividend tax cuts, capital gains cuts, etc, really fall into a zero sum sort of definition. Interest rate cuts - supposedly to stimulate borrowing - eat into savers (i.e. retirees income dependent upon bond holdings, savings accounts, etc).

I would like to see more time spent in identifying the underlying problem rather than what's politically expedient and what jives with the political narrative that both sides preach.

[mookiemookie]

This set of data is simply not useful to make the argument you're trying to make with it. It's fallacious. If you don't understand how the US government has been fudging employment numbers over the past couple of decades, this will be beyond you. The people who put your charts together probably couldn't tell you what types of employment are used, or any other statistical adjustments used to create that chart. However, out in the real world, people who operate real businesses with real capital and real operating expenses can tell you that taxation has a direct result on their employment practices.

Fine. Go pull John Williams' Shadow Stats unemployment data and plot it against tax rates. My point still stands and you're still wrong.

Iit sounds like YOU don't understand the labor measures of unemployment. You know about U6 unemployment and the birth/death adjustment ratio. Bully for you. But don't presume to lecture me on it - I get paid to deal with this stuff. It boils down to: you will not be vindicated by the fact that the U3 data understates unemployment - you will still be completely wrong, but by magnitude of "a lot" vs "a whole lot". Inverse to no correlation is still inverse to no correlation, regardless of the underlying data points!

Tax rates have no bearing on employment. You have not and will not disprove that. Partisan narratives don't trump hard data.

[Armistead]

Let's get something straight Arimstead. It's THEIR wealth! Private property. What you advocate is nothing less than legalized theft. Politics of the mob. Where will it end?

You really think 10% of people that now control over 90% of wealth, mostly corporate america did so fairly, based on fair trade law, competition, tax code and proper regulation? That all the billions of corporate PAC's,,are just interested in social causes.

Naw, your right, they don't seek to buy congressional seats

And look where it's got us, now that small percent can't substain our government or debt load.

Don't worry, next generation or so when your kids here in america are working for a few bucks with no benefits or protection in sweat shops, have no health care, maybe corporate america will come back to work in america.

[August]

It's not that one gets rich, i'st how they get rich. Corporations really have controlled government regulated monopolies...

You started talking about individuals and now you're talking about corporations. Which is it?

[Armistead]

You started talking about individuals and now you're talking about corporations. Which is it?


My last post I believe is 64, I mention corporations, but the individuals that lead them are the class that is becoming rich.

In fair regulated competition I'm for people getting as rich as they possibly can, not corps that buy regulation.

[Sea Demon]

Fine. Go pull John Williams' Shadow Stats unemployment data and plot it against tax rates. My point still stands and you're still wrong.

Iit sounds like YOU don't understand the labor measures of unemployment. You know about U6 unemployment and the birth/death adjustment ratio. Bully for you. But don't presume to lecture me on it - I get paid to deal with this stuff. It boils down to: you will not be vindicated by the fact that the U3 data understates unemployment - you will still be completely wrong, but by magnitude of "a lot" vs "a whole lot". Inverse to no correlation is still inverse to no correlation, regardless of the underlying data points!

Tax rates have no bearing on employment. You have not and will not disprove that. Partisan narratives don't trump hard data.

Yet nothing is proven with the graphs you provide as "evidence". I actually took the time to read some of what this guy (John Williams)talks about. If you read carefully, he is not concluding what you read into it. Or at least I haven't seen this conclusion because of what is left out of the scene. One thing you ignore(willfully?) is that not all taxes are equal, nor are they the same across all states. And there are various taxes that some states don't even apply. This changes the whole aspect of what you're trying to prove with those graphs.

State taxation, property taxes in various localities, State income and state corporate taxes all affect businesses differently. Plus the graphs you show don't actually show how it may take 3...sometimes 4 quarters before businesses makes adjustments relative to things that affect their expenses such as taxes. Businesses often make adjustments prior to changing their workforce numbers. Sometimes they don't.

The company I work for is a classic example of what happens when taxes increase or remain high. Many businesses confirm it by leaving the high tax state of California. My company's HQ lease was excessively high...due in large part to the landlords property tax situation. Local and state governments in California demand extremely large shares of the pie. That was a known. And so paying the lease was a huge expense. One factor in determining cost of rent or lease is tax. That's also a given. Not too hard to see or understand.

Another factor is the fact that the sales tax on every purchase in California is 8.75% tax on every purchase made. That makes every subcontract, or goods and service provided within the state excessively expensive due to high taxes. this affeects the bottom line. Ultimately, these 2 taxes alone increased our operating costs to a point where an adjustment had to be made. And it was. The job losses could have been higher, yet our company laid off 80 here in California, streamlined the efficiency in various admin areas in the last 6 months, and rehired 53 in another state. A net loss of only 27 jobs(53 gained in low tax state), yet 80 California (high tax state job losses). That directly affected employment in both states yet the ratio is low.

I can even correlate that to some degree in your graph, yet it's splitting hairs. Of course I couldn't factor in the quarterly business cycles or balance sheet ratios into those graphs. And because of that...they are worthless to try to conclude what you're seeking to conclude.

The big question is, why do you think places like Texas, Arizona, and Louisiana (lower tax states)are seeing business gains while California (Big Dem/high tax)businesses have been downsizing or leaving? The big factors are usually over-regulation and costs associated with them, including taxes. Taxes (and all other expenses)absolutely correlate to employment or business adjustments. And I just showed you how. It's actually quite intuitive to most people that capital being seized by government, means less resources to grow business or sustain employment. Because of what your graphs don't show, they don't disprove anything.

[August]

Because of what your graphs don't show, they don't disprove anything.

Good post, but this isn't about equal and air treatment under the law. This is about sticking it to the, how did Mookie put it?, the "poor oppressed country club and yacht set". :yep:

[Skybird]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_9398000/9398261.stm

Pessimists may agree with this:

What is interesting about the declinists' case is that it has little to do with the obvious foreign threats to the power of the United States.
The real problem is an inability to get the nation, as they see it, to wake up to impending disaster and mend its ways.
There is an interestingly moral tone to their argument. The point is that the US debt - her accumulated deficits - cannot easily be addressed without serious and painful changes to society, probably including tax rises and an end to some entitlements.
Barack Obama's budget hinted at what has to be done but in truth would do little to address the fundamental problems that cause the US to function, or fail to function, as it does.

While optimists may favour to focus on things like that:

"I don't think we're the only nation that can invent great technologies, I don't think we have a lock on intelligence or education," she says.
"But that cultural characteristic of welcoming, indeed requiring, the challenging of authority - in a world where knowledge, ideas, innovation is the currency - we're very well placed.


And realists like me?

We would probably think that it may go the way pessimists point out, but that the optimists' arguments may describe factors that may help to delay the decline a bit and reduce its momentum by more or lesser degrees.

[gimpy117]

You really think 10% of people that now control over 90% of wealth, mostly corporate america did so fairly, based on fair trade law, competition, tax code and proper regulation? That all the billions of corporate PAC's,,are just interested in social causes.

Naw, your right, they don't seek to buy congressional seats

And look where it's got us, now that small percent can't substain our government or debt load.

Don't worry, next generation or so when your kids here in america are working for a few bucks with no benefits or protection in sweat shops, have no health care, maybe corporate america will come back to work in america.

But that the way they want it. They bend over backwards trying to paint the UAW (for example) as some evil union that went to far, While forgetting that they were just doing their job. Fighting for the best possible wages for workers. In the good days of the auto industry (before the 1989 layoffs) Someone could get a high school diploma, go to GM and put in hard work, work his way up and retire at a decent age. Thats what i call the American Dream.

But where is that now? Corporations In america are slashing costs by taking it out on workers, while paying executives historic compensation. You see Toyota and Subaru making noise about "oh we love america too" but their employees have substantially less benefits. I think It's like that in just about every other industry in america, UAW plants are the outliers, the holdovers when companies actually paid for benefits.

The Squeeze for Americans to work for less is on. As it has been for some time, as corporate america gets richer. I wonder why that is?

[August]

While forgetting that they were just doing their job. Fighting for the best possible wages for workers.

Yeah and you may not like it but corporations are just doing their job too, which is maximizing the return on their shareholders investment, not providing a high paying job for life to some high school graduate. Publicly traded corporations are controlled by very demanding and impatient stockholders who really only care about the size of their dividends. If a CEO makes big coin it's because he is doing right by the people who pay him.

[Ducimus]

You still think corporate american cares about america and probably believe in trickle down. This fiscal mess was created when Bush was in office, as were non ending wars. Corporations are now working globally minded, thinking a global future. They once worked well for america and made money, now they're only interested in a global economy, not what works for america..

I was going to avoid respond with any more of my emotionally charge dribble, but i have to say The above quote is dead on. Nail on the head. I work for a private corporation thats gone global. The powers that be ONLY think of global projection of the company, and the bottom line. We had a merger a few years back, and the first thing they did was fire all the windows based programmers. In house development now is done at an offshore office where its cheaper. Did i mention im amazed I haven't been laid off yet? I've considered myself dead man walking for 3 months now.

[Armistead]

But that the way they want it. They bend over backwards trying to paint the UAW (for example) as some evil union that went to far, While forgetting that they were just doing their job. Fighting for the best possible wages for workers. In the good days of the auto industry (before the 1989 layoffs) Someone could get a high school diploma, go to GM and put in hard work, work his way up and retire at a decent age. Thats what i call the American Dream.

But where is that now? Corporations In america are slashing costs by taking it out on workers, while paying executives historic compensation. You see Toyota and Subaru making noise about "oh we love america too" but their employees have substantially less benefits. I think It's like that in just about every other industry in america, UAW plants are the outliers, the holdovers when companies actually paid for benefits.

The Squeeze for Americans to work for less is on. As it has been for some time, as corporate america gets richer. I wonder why that is?

Corporate america doesn't work for America, it's globally minded and why they increase in mass profits, they're driving down US wages, exporting jobs and buying congressional seats to pass any regulation they want.

But I'll also have to pass on unions, at least to a degree. What corporations do to unions, unions do to the private sector. If you have a good profitable product then you can pay the high wages, benefits and retirement. To do this you need fair regulation. The GOP wants to under regulate, the Dems more, unless it suits a social need, then they'll regulate it however it best suits to get them voted, like the disaster of deregulating the housing markets to get as many in homes as possible that couldn't afford them.

I believe in strong proper regulation that evens the field for all players, forcing them to work based on competition and for america. I cringe at the GOP so called conservatives that say...If they get rich, good for them, even if it doesn't work for Americans. This is why were heading for 70% Americans in the next generation will be living in poverty. No amount of taxes the few rich pay in will substain a strong US. Our military will go the way the Soviets did, health care for a lucky few, the US dollar will soon be replaced....when that happens, all those that love working for corporate America will see wages and benefits drop to unlivable levels.

If you compare America to the great empires of the past, ours will be a rather brief moment of power.

The government shouldn't be in the business of bailing out unions or corporations.

[Ducimus]

BTW Armistead, thanks for the link (http://www.mybudget360.com/top-1-percent-control-42-percent-of-financial-wealth-in-the-us-how-average-americans-are-lured-into-debt-servitude-by-promises-of-mega-wealth/), it's an Interesting read and had a few details about wallstreet i wasn't aware of. (that and supporting articles that reaffirm for how one feels about an issue is always nice. :haha: )